RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 994, 9 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, August 6. (Before J. Giles, Esq., K.M.) CHARGE OE ASSAOJ/T. H. London v. Joseph Jones. Charge of assault. Mr Fisher for plaintiff. The plaintiff deposed that on Sunday, the 28th July, defendant, with some other miners, were in his place at Caledonian Terrace, discussing, amongst other matters, on religion ; that defendant struck him, and challenged him to fight, plaintiff then to get his assailant out of the house, taking down a gun and making a feint to shoot him ; whereupon defendant got hold of the weapon and smashed it to pieces, plaintiff running away and arming himself with a tomahawk in self defence. By defendant: You annoyed me. Tou never asked me to leave you alone and not interfere. You hit me on the side. Wilson and Findlay were present. Don't know if they saw you strike me. You frightened me and caused me to take the gun. By Mr Fisher: Defendant was disputing with Wilson. My house is not a licensed house. I was unwell and told them to go away.

By Court: Defendant was not discussing noisily with Wilson. He was a little the worse for liquor. Hill Wilson, miner, on oatb, said he was present with plaintiff, defendant, and one Findlay, in London's house, talking on religion. Suddenly saw Jones and London struggling for possession of a gun, witness tried to take it away, or keep the muzzle from the direction of his own head, got hit on the nose in the melee, and did'nt bother any more with them, bnt after the scrimmage was over went away with defendant and Findlay. By Court; The quarrell commenced with some civil talk about religion, nothing uncivil or provoking. By defendant: Did not see London present the gun at you, but both were struggling to get possession of it. Defendant in defence, stated that he had gone in to get a glass of grog with Findlay, when complainant asked him to get on the roof and stop a leak, did so, then came down and partook of liquor with London. Afterwards they played ' Yankee Grab,' and London got wild at losing, and, presenting a gun, threatened to blow his (defendant's) brains out. Defendant took it awav, and broke it to pieces.

Mr Fisher shewed that the evidence proved that the defendant, with the other men, were annoying his client by their noise, in spite of his protestations that he was unwell, and did not like a noise in his house on Sunday morning, and hence he might be held justified in taking vigorous means to expel them. The Court held that it was not easy from the evidence to say how the dispute arose. It happened in nine cases out of ten when actions for assault were brought before the Court, that strong reluctance was shown by complainants in giving a clear and candid explanation of facts, thus causing a suspicion of some provocation to assault. Such was the case at present. The complainant stating that a dispute about religion was followed by a sudden blow from defendant. It seemed improbable that the plaintiff could expect the court to believe this, without some further corroborative proof than had been adduced. Case dismissed.

CIVIL CASES. Thomas v. Valla.—Mr Fisher for defendant. This case had been adjourned from last court day, for production of bill of particulars. Plaintiff having failed to furnish the same to defendant, the case was now nonsuited. Valla v. Thomas.—Judgment was given herein, but execution stayed for one week. H. London v. Joseph Jones.— Claim for £5 value of gun destroyed. Mr Fisher for plaintiff. Defendaut pleaded not indebted. This case arose out of the preceding case of assault, wherein a gun, the property of plaintiff, was destroyed by defendant. The fragments of the gun produced showed that the stock had been broken in several places, the lock and barrel separated, and that the damage done was beyond reparation. Hill "Wilson gave evidence as to seeing " a kind of old gun " in plaintiff's house on the 28th July, for the possession of which plaintiff and defendant were struggling, and that the gun was afterwards smashed on the floor by defendant. By defendant: Don't remember your saying " T'll put it out of the way of further harm." Do not remember defendant threatening you with a tomahawk. Daniel Findlay deposed that he went to the house of plaintiff, with defendant on the day in question. Defendant, at London's request, got on the roof and stopped a leak there; afterwards London asked them to drink. They did so, and a conversation thereafter arose between Wilson und defendant, the talk, in fact, being about the diggings getting "cooked/' and the wickedness of the place, and the state of hereafter existence. One argued that there was no hell, but that every mau' conscience was a hell within his

own breast. London argued against this, and got excited. He was also "shirty," at having lost one or two rounds at Yankee grab. An altercation arose between London and defendant, aud London rushed for the gun, swearing at defendant and threatening to shoot him. They struggled together, and afterwards, when the gun was lying on the floor, defendant picked it up and smashed it to pieces. By defendant: The gun has passed through several hands and has been raffled for £2. It was made a present to London. Defendant, in justification, stated that he only seized the gun when the plaintiff brought it to the "present" at him. Its present value he thought was about 2|d. It had been used for " shooting several persons," and had been broken before by London striking a goat. To Mr Fisher: Knew a good gun when he saw it, and did not think the plate put on the gun, as a repair, was dear at 23s ; if the tradesman could get the money. Never kept account of the number of nips he partook of during the day. On the Sunday morning had one when he came off the roof, then the four men had a round each of Yankee grab. He genorally took " Jamaky ;" gave one of his drinks to another man; might have had some more but cannot say for certain. There was no disturbance until London got annoyed at losing. London might have asked him to leave. He, defendant did tell London, in a gentle tone of voice, to mind his own business, whereupon London made for the gun. Got the gun away and threw it down, and afterwards when plaintiff got a tomahawk, he, defendant, chased him round the table until Findlay took the tomahawk away. Afterwards took the gun off the floor and broke it to pieces ; aud would do the same again under similar circumstances. The Court ruling that the evidence not having proved that any necessity had arisen for breaking the gun, for the preservation of life, and that, supposing it to have been loaded, the most effectual way to get rid of danger would have been to discharge the weapon; held that the destruction was unjustifiable, and, assessing tho value at 30s, gave judgment for that amount with costs.